HDR is crayons

[Travis]

Great title. Meaningless, but room to be interpreted.

I think of Christmas as a kid; getting that giant box of Crayola's. So many different colors. It was amazing. I'd like to think HDR provides as many different colors as I imagined being in that big box of crayons.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

Incidentally, I think we all owe the OP a round of applause. Not only did his troll topic get off to a rousing start, but somehow he just knew he'd never even have to come back and carry his own water because someone else would do it for him. Kudos.

That being said, there's some good info in this thread coming from some other posters.

[Bluebolt]

Originally Posted by koberulz

That being said, there's some good info in this thread coming from some other posters.

Of course, but unfortunately the usual browbeaters are trolling here, and they're easy to identify by their repetitive ad hominem attacks on the OP, which the rest of us are stuck having to work around and it gets old.

[bradnoyes]

Originally Posted by koberulz

That being said, there's some good info in this thread coming from some other posters.

It's the forum's circle of life: someone posts something nuts and that gets followed by some good posts from people (not me) who know what they're talking about. In a few weeks/months we'll all do it again.

Originally Posted by Bluebolt

Of course, but unfortunately the usual browbeaters are trolling here, and they're easy to identify by their repetitive ad hominem attacks on the OP, which the rest of us are stuck having to work around and it gets old.

The OP came here to troll and succeeded. I wouldn't feel too bad for him.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Film is graded in SDR?

Older movies were graded for theatrical presentation which was certainly not HDR. That’s why we’re having this discussion in the first place.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Older movies were graded for theatrical presentation which was certainly not HDR. That’s why we’re having this discussion in the first place.

Irrelevant. Film was neither SDR or HDR. The point is how do you capture the film electronically. HDR allows to capture more of the dynamic range of the original film on home media formats.

HDR is a grading choice made after that, yes. But how is that any different to the way film has to be graded anyway when telecined/scaned? If you can get closer to the dynamic range of the film materials why wouldn't you?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Older movies were graded for theatrical presentation which was certainly not HDR. That’s why we’re having this discussion in the first place.

Film isn't "SDR" as we couch it in terms of the gamma EOTF funnelled thru 8-bit 709 either though, you know? Unless we're literally watching an original print projected (as even a newly struck print is being done on modern print stock, Gordon Willis didn't like the new prints of the Godfather restoration because they couldn't hold the blacks) then we're not watching the original, and even then prints could vary from run to run owing to the vagaries of the photochemical process (hence Kubrick insisting on spot-checking random reels in their hundreds) as well as having things like IB Tech prints which presented a different look in their own way.

I know you didn't say that film was SDR doc, I just think that people (not you) who clutch their pearls as to how sacrilegious HDR is and that their SDR Blu is somehow a perfect representation are missing the point. Film is not the gamma SDR EOTF and film is not the perceptual quantiser HDR EOTF either, though one can certainly make a case for the latter being a closer fit with the caveat that it can also show a whole lot more than what was ever intended. And it's easier for people like RAH or Torsten Kaiser to look down upon HDR as they do when they're literally handling the film and are seeing it graded at source in the wider gamut and logarithmic range with zero chroma compression and so on.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Ruined

The point is RAH doesnt want to be beholden to the consumer or corporate marketing expectations of "brighter, deeper, more lifelike colors" that go along with HDR if he signs on to a 4k restoration, but on the other hand the studio hiring him/paying the bill might require him to make the HDR output look significantly different than what RAH believes intent was - and if RAH does not make the HDR grade look significantly different than SDR they may reject his restoration or not hire him to begin with since studio research shows HDR is what sells the content.

The bottom line is this paradigm would merely be more evidence the industry has moved past him. There would be equally qualified restoration gurus who would navigate the waters between "too faithful" (read: limiting) and "encroaching revisionism"; knowing what the client and their consumers, us, demand of a classic to bother upgrading. If Spartacus barely goes beyond rec. 709 colours and refuses any highlight detail near 1000 nits even when there is appropriate content (that is clipped in blu-ray), I am immediately unlikely to upgrade to that neutered 4K UHD disc. Even if RAH has his name attached to the supervision of it and that carries previous chops.

Again, Bridge on the River Kwai is the test balloon of giving us an impressively presented classic film while using the formats selling points. Does anyone really think it fails to honour David Lean's epic??

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

Irrelevant. Film was neither SDR or HDR.

Not at all irrelevant. Film has an exposure latitude. That film, however, is not a finished movie. The finished movie is graded for the relevant display conditions which were in the range we'd consider SDR.

Originally Posted by oddbox83

If you can get closer to the dynamic range of the film materials why wouldn't you?

Because that film was shot with the specific intent and expectation of using it in the smaller dynamic range it was graded for.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by nick4amber

The bottom line is this paradigm would merely be more evidence the industry has moved past him.

Industries often "move past" people who try to protect the standards those industries should be holding themselves to. This is usually not a great thing.

The music industry "moved past" a lossless format as the dominant consumer sales paradigm. Does this mean that lossless formats are suddenly no longer better than lossy formats for the accurate delivery of the content or that industry experts who advise of such are simply outmoded in their thinking?

Originally Posted by nick4amber

There would be equally qualified restoration gurus who would navigate the waters between "too faithful"

There's your issue, right there... "too" faithful. So, for you, the line is between *some revisionism* and *more revisionism than I find tasteful*. For Robert Harris, the line is between *no revisionism* (or, more accurately, *as little revisionism as possible*) and *some revisionism*. I happen to agree with him. You can call us dinosaurs if you want, but please don't pretend that your thinking is coming from any other place than that you think some revisionism is preferable. You're casting that as more "modern" thinking; I'm casting it as more "inaccurate" thinking.

[dcx4610]

I get the argument about HDR not being authentic to what was originally filmed but I also think there is a misunderstanding about HDR in general.

It's not just about making things brighter like neon. It's dynamic RANGE. It allows for a wider range of luminosity - both light and dark.

A good example of this is Sicario during the night desert raid. It's almost completely pitch black with only the moon for lighting. It looks amazing and feels like you are actually outside in the middle of the night. Compare that to the non-HDR version and it's just a flat shot.

So while HDR is not accurate to how something is actually filmed, it IS more accurate to how it would have looked in real life while filming. The camera can only capture so much and post-processing such as HDR can make a film look more life-like.

Another good example is NASA. Have you seen raw NASA images? The shots are taken in black and white in order to capture as much light as possible. The NASA artists then take the raw data and carefully color them, adjust the luminosity, bring out detail, etc. What they are trying to do is show you what it would look like if you were actually there and seeing it with human eyes. The camera can only capture so much.

With HDR, we are pretty much doing the same thing. It's just a limitation of the camera.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by dcx4610

So while HDR is not accurate to how something is actually filmed, it IS more accurate to how it would have looked in real life while filming. The camera can only capture so much and post-processing such as HDR can make a film look more life-like.

The problem is, we can't second guess the way those decisions would have been made by artists had the wider dynamic-range display technology been available at the time. We can also colorize a black-and-white movie and that will make it look "more accurate to how it would have looked in real life while filming", but every color decision we impose on that movie is, at best, an educated guess about the filmmakers' intent.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

Irrelevant. Film was neither SDR or HDR. The point is how do you capture the film electronically. HDR allows to capture more of the dynamic range of the original film on home media formats.

HDR is a grading choice made after that, yes. But how is that any different to the way film has to be graded anyway when telecined/scaned? If you can get closer to the dynamic range of the film materials why wouldn't you?

This.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

The problem is, we can't second guess the way those decisions would have been made by artists had the wider dynamic-range display technology been available at the time. We can also colorize a black-and-white movie and that will make it look "more accurate to how it would have looked in real life while filming", but every color decision we impose on that movie is, at best, an educated guess about the filmmakers' intent.

Every time a film is revisited and gets another release it's second-guessed.

And this is a poor analogy. Black and white movies were captured on film in black and white. Colorizing is adding color. HDR is not "adding HDR". It's just a different way of getting the information from the negative to the disc.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by mar3o

This

... doesn't resolve the issue.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Every time a film is revisited and gets another release it's second-guessed.

Of course. All these processes are compromises and messy interpretations. The important difference is that the philosophy guiding those compromises should prioritize matching the original look *as closely as is reasonably possible*. It's the difference between the aim of best re-creating the original look and revising the original look. The impossibility of ever re-creating the look with absolute precision should not be interpreted as a license to just ignore the original look and head off in divergent directions. The focus should always be to get as close to that look as time, budget and tools will allow.

Originally Posted by mar3o

And this is a poor analogy. Black and white movies were captured on film in black and white. Colorizing is adding color. HDR is not "adding HDR". It's just a different way of getting the information from the negative to the disc.

If you're using the added range of HDR to include highlights or lowlights that were not seen in the cinema, you are indeed literally adding color. Just because it's on the negative doesn't mean it was meant to be seen.

[Joce]

Let this old man go to retirement.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Joce

Let this old man go to retirement.

Yeah! And send all the art-being-seen-as-it-was-meant-to-be-seen with him!

Who needs artists' expression when we can have "pop" instead?

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Of course. All these processes are compromises and messy interpretations. The important difference is that the philosophy guiding those compromises should prioritize matching the original look *as closely as is reasonably possible*. It's the difference between the aim of best re-creating the original look and revising the original look. The impossibility of ever re-creating the look with absolute precision should not be interpreted as a license to just ignore the original look and head off in divergent directions. The focus should always be to get as close to that look as time, budget and tools will allow.

Something I've said many times before though... the number of catalog titles where the HDR feels rampantly revisionist is pretty few IMO. Most older movies on the format feel like film prints to me, maybe with a moment here or there that gets a little too bright, but nothing really worrisome. There are exceptions... I doubt The Mummy had that kind of range all on the negative, for example. However for the most part I think the studios are being very respectful with older films, to the point we have people here daily questioning "IS THIS TOO DARK???" Honestly HDR has gotten me used to a darker look than SDR did, and I've lowered my SDR backlight from 40% to 30% because forty now feels too bright.

Also as Geoff keeps repeating, it's not like normal BD looks anywhere near theatrically accurate, nor did DVD and VHS, so home video has always been a game of compromises.

[LexInHD]

I saw Hitchcock's Vertigo last night, in 4K. Those who have seen the film and know what it is and why it is, know that the scenic visuals play an important role, as do the colors and visual sequences associated with characters and happenings in the story. HDR is the type of thing that serves as a beneficial add-on for works such as that because it allows - when properly and respectfully used - a bit more to be squeezed out of restored classics from the Technicolor glory days, which studios have spent millions recovering and restoring.